Excellent analysis, as always. It made me wonder if universities will eventually become irrelevant as producers of good scientific research. As those of us who came up under the merit-based system (and some of us are women--imagine that!) retire and die out, this ideology may become more and more prominent. Meanwhile, industries that depend on solid science will have to bring back or beef up their research labs. There used to be a wonderful division of scientific research labor in this country: the government did the really long-term, mission-oriented research; industry did short-term, mission-oriented research; and universities did a lot of the cutting-edge research, the outcome of which might have been very uncertain, as is common (even desirable) in true innovation. Because it was on the cutting edge, though, a lot of scientific research was eventually actionable by industry and government. It wasn't a perfect ecosystem (and the division of labor wasn't as clean as I've outlined), but it worked pretty well. Now, industry may be the only place good research can be done because in order to actualize the results, there have to be meaningful results and, whether the results are meaningful depends entirely on merit. Industry can't afford to do research under CSJ--it's too expensive and is meaningless for any kind of innovation.
yes, American academia is a lost cause, regardless of one election.
The time to stop the New Left's Long March through the Institutions was maybe a generation ago, but the new commissars had already wisely camouflaged themselves as the heirs to the Civil Rights Movement and as official defenders of the Oppressed, meaning anyone who opposed them risked getting skunk-sprayed with a bigotry accusation.
Conservatives were more concerned with their 401ks and laughed about how those crazy kids on campus would be in for a shock once they hit the "real world", not realizing that the "real world" was being remade; and liberals were easily neutralized because they have no ability or vocabulary to oppose anyone to their Left—the social costs are too high.
American academia is the Vatican and home office of the Social Justice faith, this is as likely to change as it's likely that the Pope becomes Jewish.
All real work in all fields will have to be done elsewhere, a la samizdat publishing.
We'll see, but I worry that Anna might be right, that it's already too ingrained in universities. One of the things that has fascinated me about the recent election is the number of people from "underprivileged" groups who not only voted for Trump but have spoken out against the way CSJ has torqued everything.
This is an excellent presentation!!! Students (also Professors) across America need watch this. I'll try organizing a seminar for you in Philadelphia. I hope that you can come visit us :)
I think this thing called Leftism or Marxism is a permanent part of Western societies, maybe a cross between a renegade faith and an autoimmune disease, and it really is essentially an established church at this point, founded on an idealistic, moralistic and punitive Egalitarianism, that can never die because it can never be achieved. It's protean, durable and maybe unkillable because it can be repurposed for every time and place (the proletariat became the Wretched of the Earth who became the marginalized who became POC etc) and because it makes the same strong moral claim: this world is unfair, unjust, filled with suffering and misery, but we (the theorist class) have a solution, which we will put into effect once given total power.
And like all established churches it has a propaganda dept, a business dept, an arts & culture dept, a science dept, all of it led by a crusading priesthood (usually disaffected adversary intellectuals), who posit themselves as an enlightened moral elite of philosopher-kings and who sell dogma that's easy to understand and works as a weapon to divide the world into Good/Evil and that turns their followers into willing crusaders who give their hearts and souls to the Permanent Revolution.
I don't come from a STEM background but was a Lit major in the 80s at one of those snooty liberal arts colleges where postmodern Parisian Maoism was first imported then reconfigured into the American academic faith called Critical Social Justice. About 40 years after the conquest of our Humanities Depts, we can see the results: people don't read anymore, all writing is judged first and foremost by its political message and content, and no one wants to be an English major, because our English Depts are the last place you'll ever learn to love literature. This to me tracks similarly to the life span of the Soviet Union: meaning more or less that after about 2-3 generations everything these people control eventually collapses from rot, as they've hollowed it all out.
I expect a similar result from the Soc Justice conquest of academic science.
I confess to being a pessimist and cynic, but as i said, i had a front-row seat to the Soc Just conquest of the Humanities starting say in the 90s, and though many great and wise writers tried to attack and oppose it—Camille Paglia, Robert Hughes, Alan Bloom and Harold Bloom, Chris Hitchens etc—they were no match for the egalitarian steamroller and the new faith that went from convert to convert and victory to victory.
But maybe STEM people are made of stronger stuff, or at least have more rigorous brains to match their more rigorous studies, and will be able to fight back and stand up for intellectual integrity. People in the arts were easy pushovers!
If we depart from truth and evidence and logic as these activists are pushing us to do, we will have absolutely nothing left.
I am someone who works on applications (for the most part; it is my personal passion). Some innovation either works, or it doesn't. It is either useful, or it isn't. There is not much in the way of "grey areas". Reality is a very harsh mistress.
So if these nincompoops are able to produce something that performs, then great. Otherwise, they are history. And good riddance.
The social sciences and humanities once consisted of serious academic disciplines. No one should celebrate their demise. The rot began with the grievance "studies": feminist, black, queer, Latinx, indigenous, etc., which infiltrated and corrupted social sciences and humanities. Of course, there was always a Marxist stream in those fields, but they were not dominant.
Prediction: even after explicit removal of DEI metrics from government granting agencies (hopefully, NSF will be first), those getting more funds from DEI-focused grants than from scientific proposals will invent ways to retain their irrelevant positions under new titles. So long as they leave scientists alone, this will still be a welcome trend.
The photo of a road in Russia is probably in Siberia. The natural resources in the ground would make that region so prosperous, they could invite seasonal laborers from Dubai. Behold the long-term effects of the socialist ideology, where people like us were able to get good education despite (not thanks to) the politicized science. This, so we can convince our colleagues not to try it here. Merit always triumphs (Olympic medals are not equitable by definition)! Excelsior!
I used to wonder how it was possible for a relatively small group of radicals like the Bolsheviks to take over a large country like Russia. Now I know, and the answer is the same for how the woke left took over academia: fear.
And the cultural marxist/woke/DEI rot starts with academia. The Augean stables must be cleaned out. A very large, absolutely essential job.
No sooner did I make the post below, I got an announcement from NSF for the "ExLENT" program. Here's a choice quote from the RFP: ""As NSF invests in the development of key technologies, we must also invest in the American workforce...The NSF ExLENT program enables all Americans to gain exposure to key technology areas, allowing individuals to pivot into higher-wage, better-quality, and technology-rich jobs. In this way, the program bolsters U.S. competitiveness." Why is this NSF's job? If a college degree is required, this means CSJ in education has failed miserably. If a college degree is not required, this means that NSF doesn't trust the existing training programs. I wonder why?
Thank you for leading the defense of science and scientific methods at a time when disinformation dismantles our societal institutions, including education. In Defense of Merit in Science defines our problem: the teaching of ideology, misinformation and disinformation (previously called lies).
Unfortunately, academicians have not abated the dismantling process. The teaching of lies on the university campus continues in full force. Following the October 7 massacre American students cheered Jihad ideology. They parroted disinformation that was fabricated by faculty and empowered by fake notions of academic freedom and free expression. This was an historical call to restore scholarly discourse on campus and stop the indoctrination of students. Luckily, we live in a democracy. The public, the accrediting bodies and the government have the responsibility and the authority to protect students (our largest vulnerable population). Luckily, education will change. But it is up to us to invite open inquiry and participate. We look up to the authors of In Defense of Merit in Science to guide the restructuring process.
The educational dinosaur is tottering. In contrast: phenomenal progress in information technology is nearing universal, instant access to knowledge and its acquisition (bypassing the teacher and institution). It is time to restructure education and to free our students to benefit from the work of those who came before them.(1)
Universal access to class content would engender the critical evaluation and iterative self correction of each lesson. It would provide students with choices.
It is difficult to abate the expression of ideology, misinformation and hate, but it is possible to stop the teaching of lies.(2) It is possible to restructure education.
This is a great article and it is very compelling.
I am reminded of the protests of the SETI conferences, because of the word "intelligence" in the title. This was thought to be some slur against minorities and their intellectual capacity. It is just mindless nonsense. And yet, probably because of fear, these radicals have a massive undue influence.
If we do not return to merit, we are through.
This is going to be a long and brutal struggle. This ideology is deeply embedded. And these characters are not going to give up easily or willingly submit.
We have to call this stuff out wherever we see it, and push back on it. Some of my colleagues think this is a waste of my time. I disagree. If we do not stop this monstrous movement, it will devour us all. And that includes people in universities and in government and in corporations and nonprofits. Everyone is at risk, and to think otherwise is naive in the extreme.
"Some of my colleagues think this is a waste of my time."
When a ravenous beast appears on the horizon, 9 out of 10 people will close their eyes and hope that it moves onto the next village.
Crit Social Justice has marched easily from victory to victory because the social and professional cost of opposing it is high enough to intimidate just about everyone.
Do as we say, think as we think or else you lose your job, status, and paycheck is usually enough to get everyone to obey.
Thanks for exposing this rottenness with such grace and clarity. But let me ask you more about your comparisons to the history of Soviet science. The biggest travesty there was the repression of the outstanding geneticist Vavilov in favor of a crude Lamarckian Lysenko, followed by an official ban on Mendelian genetics--which all Communists internationally were pressured to endorse--hat lasted until 1962. However, much of that was driven by frantic wishful-thinking efforts to revive collectivized agriculture backed up by real threats of imprisonment. Also, Lysenko benefited from plausible hopes at the time for vernalization, whose success he grossly exaggerated. In contrast, the DEI-based science you describe now seems far less plausible and critics aren't threatened with imprisonment. So its rise and critics' relative silence seem driven by some combination of gain/loss of funding and gain/loss of colleagues' acclaim. To what extent do you agree with that assessment? And how would you rate the funding incentives versus the acclaim incentives?
The story of N. Vavilov/Lysenko/genetics is incredibly interesting and multifaceted. I recently read 800 page long book about it written by science historian Semen Reznik. Unfortunately, it is in Russian. I hope it will be translated one day.
There were several factors in play in Lysenko vs genetics story. The false promise of agricultural miracle (by Lysenko) did play a role in his rise to power, but equally important was his status as a "barefoot scientist" -- a representative of the preferred class of poor peasants (as opposed to Vavilov's background). Also critically important was his devious alliance with Prezent -- a Marxist-Leninist ideologue who framed the scientific dispute in terms of ideological conflict between the proletariat science and bourgeois science -- this framing shut down the scientific discussion for good. An obvious parallel is gender/sex -- framing these biological/medical issues as a social justice issue shut down the voices from medical profession.
And the incentives played a role -- some people were afraid of being jailed and executed. And others were excited to take advantage of career opportunities that opened up once a batch of successful scientists were removed from the scene. The parallels with today are: some people remain silent because they are terrified by cancellation prospects while others are actively peddling the ideology because they can advance their carriers on the DEI card rather then merit.
Excellent analysis, as always. It made me wonder if universities will eventually become irrelevant as producers of good scientific research. As those of us who came up under the merit-based system (and some of us are women--imagine that!) retire and die out, this ideology may become more and more prominent. Meanwhile, industries that depend on solid science will have to bring back or beef up their research labs. There used to be a wonderful division of scientific research labor in this country: the government did the really long-term, mission-oriented research; industry did short-term, mission-oriented research; and universities did a lot of the cutting-edge research, the outcome of which might have been very uncertain, as is common (even desirable) in true innovation. Because it was on the cutting edge, though, a lot of scientific research was eventually actionable by industry and government. It wasn't a perfect ecosystem (and the division of labor wasn't as clean as I've outlined), but it worked pretty well. Now, industry may be the only place good research can be done because in order to actualize the results, there have to be meaningful results and, whether the results are meaningful depends entirely on merit. Industry can't afford to do research under CSJ--it's too expensive and is meaningless for any kind of innovation.
yes, American academia is a lost cause, regardless of one election.
The time to stop the New Left's Long March through the Institutions was maybe a generation ago, but the new commissars had already wisely camouflaged themselves as the heirs to the Civil Rights Movement and as official defenders of the Oppressed, meaning anyone who opposed them risked getting skunk-sprayed with a bigotry accusation.
Conservatives were more concerned with their 401ks and laughed about how those crazy kids on campus would be in for a shock once they hit the "real world", not realizing that the "real world" was being remade; and liberals were easily neutralized because they have no ability or vocabulary to oppose anyone to their Left—the social costs are too high.
American academia is the Vatican and home office of the Social Justice faith, this is as likely to change as it's likely that the Pope becomes Jewish.
All real work in all fields will have to be done elsewhere, a la samizdat publishing.
Hopefully this issue will be quickly addressed by the new administration. Absolutely zero grants for this shit.
We'll see, but I worry that Anna might be right, that it's already too ingrained in universities. One of the things that has fascinated me about the recent election is the number of people from "underprivileged" groups who not only voted for Trump but have spoken out against the way CSJ has torqued everything.
The election of Trump is being greeted with horror on the left. They’re gearing up to resist.
Change won’t be easy.
This is an excellent presentation!!! Students (also Professors) across America need watch this. I'll try organizing a seminar for you in Philadelphia. I hope that you can come visit us :)
I think this thing called Leftism or Marxism is a permanent part of Western societies, maybe a cross between a renegade faith and an autoimmune disease, and it really is essentially an established church at this point, founded on an idealistic, moralistic and punitive Egalitarianism, that can never die because it can never be achieved. It's protean, durable and maybe unkillable because it can be repurposed for every time and place (the proletariat became the Wretched of the Earth who became the marginalized who became POC etc) and because it makes the same strong moral claim: this world is unfair, unjust, filled with suffering and misery, but we (the theorist class) have a solution, which we will put into effect once given total power.
And like all established churches it has a propaganda dept, a business dept, an arts & culture dept, a science dept, all of it led by a crusading priesthood (usually disaffected adversary intellectuals), who posit themselves as an enlightened moral elite of philosopher-kings and who sell dogma that's easy to understand and works as a weapon to divide the world into Good/Evil and that turns their followers into willing crusaders who give their hearts and souls to the Permanent Revolution.
I don't come from a STEM background but was a Lit major in the 80s at one of those snooty liberal arts colleges where postmodern Parisian Maoism was first imported then reconfigured into the American academic faith called Critical Social Justice. About 40 years after the conquest of our Humanities Depts, we can see the results: people don't read anymore, all writing is judged first and foremost by its political message and content, and no one wants to be an English major, because our English Depts are the last place you'll ever learn to love literature. This to me tracks similarly to the life span of the Soviet Union: meaning more or less that after about 2-3 generations everything these people control eventually collapses from rot, as they've hollowed it all out.
I expect a similar result from the Soc Justice conquest of academic science.
I hope it will not take that long. But it might. Or it might take longer.
There are signs of hope. But we must remain stalwart and vigilant.
I confess to being a pessimist and cynic, but as i said, i had a front-row seat to the Soc Just conquest of the Humanities starting say in the 90s, and though many great and wise writers tried to attack and oppose it—Camille Paglia, Robert Hughes, Alan Bloom and Harold Bloom, Chris Hitchens etc—they were no match for the egalitarian steamroller and the new faith that went from convert to convert and victory to victory.
But maybe STEM people are made of stronger stuff, or at least have more rigorous brains to match their more rigorous studies, and will be able to fight back and stand up for intellectual integrity. People in the arts were easy pushovers!
If we depart from truth and evidence and logic as these activists are pushing us to do, we will have absolutely nothing left.
I am someone who works on applications (for the most part; it is my personal passion). Some innovation either works, or it doesn't. It is either useful, or it isn't. There is not much in the way of "grey areas". Reality is a very harsh mistress.
So if these nincompoops are able to produce something that performs, then great. Otherwise, they are history. And good riddance.
I applaud you for your courage. Here's to hoping that the new administration will zero out funding for humanities and social sciences as New Zealand.
The social sciences and humanities once consisted of serious academic disciplines. No one should celebrate their demise. The rot began with the grievance "studies": feminist, black, queer, Latinx, indigenous, etc., which infiltrated and corrupted social sciences and humanities. Of course, there was always a Marxist stream in those fields, but they were not dominant.
Thank you for your excellent analysis!
Excellent, as always, Anna!
Prediction: even after explicit removal of DEI metrics from government granting agencies (hopefully, NSF will be first), those getting more funds from DEI-focused grants than from scientific proposals will invent ways to retain their irrelevant positions under new titles. So long as they leave scientists alone, this will still be a welcome trend.
The photo of a road in Russia is probably in Siberia. The natural resources in the ground would make that region so prosperous, they could invite seasonal laborers from Dubai. Behold the long-term effects of the socialist ideology, where people like us were able to get good education despite (not thanks to) the politicized science. This, so we can convince our colleagues not to try it here. Merit always triumphs (Olympic medals are not equitable by definition)! Excelsior!
Excellent, Anna - cheers!
I used to wonder how it was possible for a relatively small group of radicals like the Bolsheviks to take over a large country like Russia. Now I know, and the answer is the same for how the woke left took over academia: fear.
And the cultural marxist/woke/DEI rot starts with academia. The Augean stables must be cleaned out. A very large, absolutely essential job.
No sooner did I make the post below, I got an announcement from NSF for the "ExLENT" program. Here's a choice quote from the RFP: ""As NSF invests in the development of key technologies, we must also invest in the American workforce...The NSF ExLENT program enables all Americans to gain exposure to key technology areas, allowing individuals to pivot into higher-wage, better-quality, and technology-rich jobs. In this way, the program bolsters U.S. competitiveness." Why is this NSF's job? If a college degree is required, this means CSJ in education has failed miserably. If a college degree is not required, this means that NSF doesn't trust the existing training programs. I wonder why?
Thank you for leading the defense of science and scientific methods at a time when disinformation dismantles our societal institutions, including education. In Defense of Merit in Science defines our problem: the teaching of ideology, misinformation and disinformation (previously called lies).
Unfortunately, academicians have not abated the dismantling process. The teaching of lies on the university campus continues in full force. Following the October 7 massacre American students cheered Jihad ideology. They parroted disinformation that was fabricated by faculty and empowered by fake notions of academic freedom and free expression. This was an historical call to restore scholarly discourse on campus and stop the indoctrination of students. Luckily, we live in a democracy. The public, the accrediting bodies and the government have the responsibility and the authority to protect students (our largest vulnerable population). Luckily, education will change. But it is up to us to invite open inquiry and participate. We look up to the authors of In Defense of Merit in Science to guide the restructuring process.
The educational dinosaur is tottering. In contrast: phenomenal progress in information technology is nearing universal, instant access to knowledge and its acquisition (bypassing the teacher and institution). It is time to restructure education and to free our students to benefit from the work of those who came before them.(1)
Universal access to class content would engender the critical evaluation and iterative self correction of each lesson. It would provide students with choices.
It is difficult to abate the expression of ideology, misinformation and hate, but it is possible to stop the teaching of lies.(2) It is possible to restructure education.
1. http://weareall.com/education
2. https://weareall.com/pedagogical-malpractice/
This is a great article and it is very compelling.
I am reminded of the protests of the SETI conferences, because of the word "intelligence" in the title. This was thought to be some slur against minorities and their intellectual capacity. It is just mindless nonsense. And yet, probably because of fear, these radicals have a massive undue influence.
If we do not return to merit, we are through.
This is going to be a long and brutal struggle. This ideology is deeply embedded. And these characters are not going to give up easily or willingly submit.
We have to call this stuff out wherever we see it, and push back on it. Some of my colleagues think this is a waste of my time. I disagree. If we do not stop this monstrous movement, it will devour us all. And that includes people in universities and in government and in corporations and nonprofits. Everyone is at risk, and to think otherwise is naive in the extreme.
"Some of my colleagues think this is a waste of my time."
When a ravenous beast appears on the horizon, 9 out of 10 people will close their eyes and hope that it moves onto the next village.
Crit Social Justice has marched easily from victory to victory because the social and professional cost of opposing it is high enough to intimidate just about everyone.
Do as we say, think as we think or else you lose your job, status, and paycheck is usually enough to get everyone to obey.
Without merit-based assessment and evidence-based knowledge, academia is a fraud.
Excellent. I look forward to your Censorship in Science Conference at USC in January! Arigato!
Thanks for exposing this rottenness with such grace and clarity. But let me ask you more about your comparisons to the history of Soviet science. The biggest travesty there was the repression of the outstanding geneticist Vavilov in favor of a crude Lamarckian Lysenko, followed by an official ban on Mendelian genetics--which all Communists internationally were pressured to endorse--hat lasted until 1962. However, much of that was driven by frantic wishful-thinking efforts to revive collectivized agriculture backed up by real threats of imprisonment. Also, Lysenko benefited from plausible hopes at the time for vernalization, whose success he grossly exaggerated. In contrast, the DEI-based science you describe now seems far less plausible and critics aren't threatened with imprisonment. So its rise and critics' relative silence seem driven by some combination of gain/loss of funding and gain/loss of colleagues' acclaim. To what extent do you agree with that assessment? And how would you rate the funding incentives versus the acclaim incentives?
The story of N. Vavilov/Lysenko/genetics is incredibly interesting and multifaceted. I recently read 800 page long book about it written by science historian Semen Reznik. Unfortunately, it is in Russian. I hope it will be translated one day.
There were several factors in play in Lysenko vs genetics story. The false promise of agricultural miracle (by Lysenko) did play a role in his rise to power, but equally important was his status as a "barefoot scientist" -- a representative of the preferred class of poor peasants (as opposed to Vavilov's background). Also critically important was his devious alliance with Prezent -- a Marxist-Leninist ideologue who framed the scientific dispute in terms of ideological conflict between the proletariat science and bourgeois science -- this framing shut down the scientific discussion for good. An obvious parallel is gender/sex -- framing these biological/medical issues as a social justice issue shut down the voices from medical profession.
And the incentives played a role -- some people were afraid of being jailed and executed. And others were excited to take advantage of career opportunities that opened up once a batch of successful scientists were removed from the scene. The parallels with today are: some people remain silent because they are terrified by cancellation prospects while others are actively peddling the ideology because they can advance their carriers on the DEI card rather then merit.
Check out recent post by Michael Shermer:
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/wokeness-poisons-science
in which he quotes from the lecture and gives more examples of how wokeness poisons science.
Superb.